Facebook details its plans to bring drone internet access to the masses – but will monopolistic telcos stand idly by?

Share This article

Earlier this month, Facebook announced that it was developing its own drone-based plan for global internet coverage, to compete against the likes of Google’s balloon-based Project Loon. On Friday, Zuckerberg unveiled a more detailed paper on that proposal, discussing why the company believes that drones are a better technology than balloons, what it hopes to accomplish, and where it believes the market will go in the future.

Like Project Loon, Dronebook (not an actual product name) is designed to solve the problem of limited internet access across the globe. The existing map of internet coverage looks like this:

If you’re in the business of getting people online and into your own service network, this is something of a problem. Two thirds of the world’s population remains off the grid and the challenges of wiring these spaces are enormous. Thanks to low population densities, impoverished citizens, challenging terrain, or significant levels of sociopolitical unrest, there are many areas of the world without a realistic plan for deploying internet access in the near future.

Facebook wants to change that, and it’s betting that drones can do a better job. The key arguments from Zuckerberg’s whitepaper are:

Solar-powered drones can remain in the air for much longer periods than their balloon counterparts.

Unlike balloons, which drift on the wind with limited controls, drones can remain directly over a specific city or area.

Unlike balloons, drones can be easily serviced and returned to flight.

In most other respects, Project Loon and FB’s drone project are similar. They target the same atmospheric height and they try to solve the same problem — tossing cheap, regional slices of internet access down from the heavens rather than relying on vastly more expensive satellites to do the trick.

Of profits and censorship

There are two major flaws that neither Google nor Facebook have addressed to date and they’ve got nothing to do with the blue sky research either company is conducting. First, there’s the very real question of how the telecommunications industry is likely to react to the widespread deployment of either technology. Right now, the likes of AT&T, Time Warner, and Comcast don’t care much about satellite providers because satellite internet is a miserable experience that no one in their right mind would ever purchase. With a round-trip latency of 1000-1500ms and sharp restrictions on monthly bandwidth, satellite internet is the internet of last resort — and the cable companies and telcos know it. Proposed systems that would substantially reduce the massive latency of satellite internet access remain untested.

A Google balloon or Facebook drone capable of throwing WiFi signals across an entire city or town is exactly the kind of threat that these companies wouldn’t take kindly to — particularly if FB or Google provided the service for free or at a sharply reduced rate. Expect a serious fight on this front if Google or FB moves towards making these projects a reality; high altitude WiFi would undercut the entire business model cellular networks depend on, and these companies do not play fair when it comes to writing laws that favor their own solutions at the expense of everyone else.

The second significant challenge to the idea of aerial internet is that there are plenty of governments in the world with zero interest in allowing unrestricted access to the internet — including many of the areas that most need the kind of projects Google and FB are proposing. Even governments that don’t explicitly keep citizens in the dark as part of a general policy of non-communication, like North Korea, aren’t likely to be thrilled with Google and Facebook beaming uncensored internet linkages to their cities from the skies. Bringing this technology to remote parts of the world is going to mean playing by the rules of nations that aren’t necessarily friendly to the unrestricted flow of information.

Finally, as we’ve discussed before, these projects aren’t philanthropic endeavors — at least, not entirely. No matter how noble the aims of both Google and Facebook, a big part of this effort is aimed at getting people online and into their own service networks. If both companies push ahead with their respective plans, it could open up an entire new vista of televised network entertainment: Balloons versus Drones — Aerial Combat at 60,000 Feet.

Tagged In

Post a Comment

Interesting map. Looks like the best coastal area to get away from it all is Baja California.

Heath Parsons

As if Facebook isn’t monopolistic itself.

dc

ever heard of Myspace? or Google +….

MisterBlat

And we now have the plotline for “The Gods Must Be Crazy III.”

Timothy

This is a crazy idea, they should use blimps instead. Nasa recently made some cube satellites that are the size of a soccer ball, they can give satellite internet access to the masses. This Idea is high maintenance many things I can see could go wrong, you need to have people on airfields all around the world for this technology. It’s simply cost to much money and resources, I think it’s a great Idea though because emergency’s in country’s can get easy access to this technology if needed. This though is simply silly I don’t think it will work.

XenoSilvano

“there are plenty of governments in the world with zero interest in allowing unrestricted access to the internet”

yeah cos we need governments telling us what the #### to do.

Cam Gordon

anybody else notice that russia is blank and most of china is blank. I think the map is off as they dont have all the data. I think it would be nice if this is offered in my city at a decent rate, I wouldnt need phone data anymore lol.

Cam Gordon

nevermind its a map of wifi and cellular networks

Moshan

Some of your arguments are pretty stupid. Oh noes! AT&T! Im sure their reach in central Africa is tyrannical.

As for governments, internet access is something almost all watt.
What you mixed, however, is censorship. Will they allow a service like Facebook if it is seen as a Western central import, like in China? Or a tool for social unrest(notice the bans on Twitter in Turkey, a fate that could easily befall Facebook in a similar country.

Jay Viradiya

I wonder what Mark Zuckerburg is upto? I mean, Independence Salute to him!! Facebook with its marvelous depth of social networking has already leaded the world to enormous connectivity among people.

Thereafter arrives Oculus in the field of Virtual Reality Headsets, where the Credit goes to Facebook. After which a giant announcement by Zuckerburg on behalf of Facebook for beaming internet through drones, laser and low altitude satellites to third world is like Smart-Cyclone of revolution in technology field, an honor with applause
to you for diverting our focus towards Mark Zuckerburg.

When businesses either can’t compete or don’t want to spend the money to do so, they hire lawyers and crush creativity.

ncgh

In many countries, including US, the telecoms are regulated utilities, not really free market. In some ways this sounds good, there are requirements about costs, public service etc.
But there is a dark side. Regulated utilities get huge protections from competition. Strict licensing and approval rules keep startups from moving in on their turf. Government essentially protects their cashflow.
So it will be tough.

dc

When businesses either can’t compete or don’t want to spend the money to do so, they hire lawyers and crush creativity.

http://www.dailynewscompany.com/ dailynewscompany.com

Is this true Facebook will buy Internet at $54 Trillion, Facebook will b new NSA

Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2015 Ziff Davis, LLC.PCMag Digital Group All Rights Reserved. ExtremeTech is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis, LLC. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.